Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLD 882 = 1993 CLC 1880
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. S-148 of 1990, decided on 2nd April, 1993.
Presented By: Before Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, J
A.M. Mobeen Khan for Petitioner. Parya Ram for
Respondent No.l.

SHABBIR AHMED ---Petitioner

VERSUS

Mst. GHULAM SAKINA and 2 others---Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Section: 9 , 12 , 14

  West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Ss. 9, 12 & 14---West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, R.22---Decree in suit for maintenance against husband---Husband instead of filing appeal against such decree in terms of S. 14, filed application for setting aside ex parte decree which was dismissed---Husband's appeal against decree for maintenance after dismissal of his application for setting aside decree in terms of S. 9, having been filed beyond period of thirty days from the date of impugned decree, was rightly dismissed by Appellate Court. especially when husband never moved any application for extension of the period of limitation in terms of R.22, West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. Khurshid Ahmed v. Attiya Nigar and others 1990 CLC 297; Saleem Ahmed v. Mst. Khadija Begum and others PLD 1977 Kar 469; Jamal Shah v. Azad Government of State of Jammu & Kashmir and others 1991 MLD 1243; Mst. Shamim Akhtar v. Additional District Judge Sialkot and another 1991 CLC 1142; Mst. Bibi Musarrat v. Sarfraz 1990 CLC 1908; M/s. Landhi Industrial Trading Estates Ltd., Karachi v. Government of West Pakistan 1970 SCMR 251; Shah Muhammad v. Ghulam and another PLD 1970 SC 196; Noor Zaman v. Mst. Saidano PLD 1967 Pesh. 343; Muhammad Afsar v. Mst. Munawar Jan PLD 1961 Lah. 199; Adrian Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 SC 187; Muhammad Usman v. Mst. Amna and others 1972 SCMR 131 and Ismat Khanum Toor v. Rao Riaz Ali Khan and others 1978 SCMR 335 ref. Muhammadan Law--- ----Maintenance---Father's liability to maintain his children---Extent---Father is bound to maintain his sons until they attain the age of puberty and -he is bound to maintain his daughters until they are married---Father, however, is not bound to maintain his adult sons unless they are disabled by infirmity or disease---Fact that children were in the custody of their mother during their infancy, would not relieve father from the obligation of maintaining them-- Where, however, father was poor, and incapable of earning by his own labour, the mother is bound to maintain her children, if she was in easy circumstances.   Principles of Mahomedan Law by Mulla, Sec. 370 and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register